Hacker News Reader

Comment by mullingitover | Hacker News Reader

> "Harmless pot? New marijuana study shows brain damage in those 18-25"

I downvoted you for endorsing this stain on the reputation of science journalism. Tiny sample size, writer exaggerates findings to craft a clickbait article title, it's awful. We deserve something better than tabloid reporting in our science articles.

View on HN

That's pretty unfair of you. Link-baity titles are par for the course for internet news sites. And the reported study is legit even if you don't like its findings.

I have no problem with the study [1]. However, I encourage you to search the study for any reference to 'brain damage.' I also encourge you to consider whether the mean frequency of cannabis use, 11.2 joints per week, really qualifies as 'casual' use.

[1] http://jn.sfn.org/press/April-16-2014-Issue/zns01614005529.p...

Are you implying that the study does not report findings of brain damage? Then you are wrong. Scientific texts tends to be as specific as possible which is why they write "deformations in brain part X, Y, Z" instead of the more general term "brain damage."

You know what else causes 'brain damage,' according to this logic? Becoming a London cab driver[1] or a musician [2]. You know what actually causes brain lesions? Alcohol.[3]

[1] http://www.wired.com/2011/12/london-taxi-driver-memory/ [2] http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/26/health/mental-health/music-bra... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_impact_of_alcohol_on_...

I also disagreed with the parent comment, but meta point: I'm not sure down voting is fair in this situation. Parent seems genuine and earnest in their comment. It seems like it'd be enough to simply reply with the counter point...

I haven't seen an etiquette guide for HN anywhere, but if we can't downvote the promotion of bad science journalism, what can we downvote?

It isn't promotion of bad science journalism. It's a crap story, but there are 3 other links in there too. I'm strongly pro-legalization and think the concerns are overblowon, but a lot of people are using the 'bad science' complaint to silence a point of view they dislike.

It's true, I do find the old 'think of the children' appeal to emotion, and the trotting out of the 'gateway drug' myth to be distasteful. However, I'm not silencing anyone's point of view--I don't have admin rights on HN, just the ability to rate comments.

Hateful, bigoted posts, of course.

Its reasonable journalism. Certainly nothing worse then Legalize It! stuff I have seen that claim cannabis will cure all.

I think it is. Posting sources that are trivially debunked subtracts, rather than adds to the discussion.

The poster is attempting to incite our fear for the children as a reason to fear the legalization of marijuana. He neglects to mention that Colorado has a 21+ policy, just like alcohol. He's ultimately arguing for a nanny state since he feels he is incapable of raising his children without them consuming the drug.

In short, he's sensationalizing, and that's not doing anyone any good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com